FINISH THIS SENTENCE: Low taxes on the rich matter more to Republicans than ____________.

For example, Michelle Bachmann thought low taxes on the rich were more important than veterans benefits--until vets handed her her ass and she backed off.

Clearly, low taxes on the rich are more important than smaller classes in K-12.

Low taxes on the rich are more important than having enough firefighters.

Low taxes on the rich are more important to Republicans than having enough cops on the streets.

Ironically, low taxes on the rich are even more important to Republicans than low taxes on everyone else.

and so on.

Please add your own (with a link if possible).

NOTE: Unfortunately, that question could also include a lot of Blue Dog and DLC Democrats, who (like Republicans), think public office is a way to audition for jobs as lobbyists, CEO's, or highly paid, do-nothing board members.

Arizona bans Arabic numerals

(Patriot Newswire) After sparking national controversy by requiring police to check the papers of those they suspect of being illegal immigrants and banning ethnic studies, Arizona continues its march toward cultural purity with a ban on Arabic numerals.

Tom Horne, Arizona's superintendent of public instruction, explains why he felt the ban was necessary: "I was shocked to learn that students at all levels were being taught with the numbers of our non-European enemies, who we are engaged in a multi-millennial existential struggle to the death with us in the War on Terror. Worse, these numbers are being used all over the country."

Horne illustrated the threat posed by Arabic numerals in a presentation at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"If you look at this photo behind me of Osama bin Laden, you'll notice them squiggly lines in the background. Now I've been told those are actually Arabic letters, and we have absolutely no way of knowing what those letters say--hell, they might not even be spelling words in English. If our children are learning Arabic numerals, they could be passing terrorists messages without us knowing it right under our noses."

Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, fully supported Horne's move. "Superintendent Horne tells me that the Latin language, which has nothing to do with the hordes of Latin Americans swarming our borders but instead was the language of the great Caucasian Roman Empire, has a perfectly good set of numbers our teachers can begin using immediately, Roman numerals."

Some rank and file Republicans in Arizona are unsure whether using Roman numerals would be an improvement.

Bob Herman, a mudflap salesman in Tempe explains their concern. "The Roman Empire was great and all that, but didn't they roll around in the sheets with the Egyptians and Africans they conquered? Can we really be sure that those numerals were invented by a guy who was just, you know, European?"

Horne is looking to address this concern with DNA testing of ancient Romans. To prepare for the possibility of a multi-ethnic outcome, he is also scouting for backup numerals of Celtic, Viking, or at least Albino origin.

It's not just Republicans that need to repudiate Rush

I got this email from the DSCC about browbeating GOP senators to repudiate Rush Limbaugh, and on one level, it's gratifying to see Democrats finally learning one of the correct lessons from the GOP: hit your opponent's strength. Do to Rush what the right did to the word "liberal" in the 80's, so that Republicans will be embarrassed to say anything that sounds remotely like any of his talking points.

I've already noticed a version of this in my college classes. Whenever a student says something about global warming being a hoax or making batteries for electric cars makes more pollution than an internal combustion engine spits out in its lifetime, I ask them, ''Where'd you hear that--on Rush Limbaugh?"

The tone is not accusatory, but for some reason, they never say yes.

There is just one problem of this shaming of Republicans: I would like to know which of the GOP's ideas so-called ''moderate'' Democrats are going to repudiate as well.

Will they forsake:

• Only taxing the rich as much as they wish to be taxed and looking the other way when they hide money in off-shore accounts or use other book-keeping scams
  
  
• Trade deals like NAFTA that screw American workers
  
  
• H-1B visas that allow high tech companies to import engineers & IT workers and leave American college grads sitting on the bench
  
  
• Privatizing government functions, including education, even though the private versions are consistently more costly and of questionable effectiveness
  
  
• Letting corporations dictate the policies and regulations that effect them as Wall Street and banks still seem to be doing with the team of Geithner, Summers, Rubin, and Bernanke writing checks for trillions with no strings attached
  
  
• Sending a black kid who robbed a 7-11 of $50 to be raped in prison and sending a white trust fund baby who broke our economy a check for billions to party with his friends, and after seeing the party, sending another check.
  
  
• In the same vein, letting health insurance and drug companies have a seat at the table crafting health care reform when they should be roasted slowly on a spit to feed the people at the table
  
  
• Letting politicians leave office and go to work for corporations they did favors for while in office
  
  
• Using fear of terrorism and nuclear weapons as an excuse to intimidate and invade nations that don't do business on terms American oil companies and banks like as is the case with Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela (the Bushies went as far as to claim al Qaeda was in Venezuela)
  
  
• Almost blasphemously, claiming we are teaching other countries democracy when we invade them and kill their people, then questioning how ''mature'' their culture is when they dare to fight back
  
  
• Never dealing honestly with why we didn't punish the two countries that sponsored al Qaeda, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In the case of the latter, they sent an agent to pick up two of the 9/11 hijacker at the airport who set them up in an apartment and funneled checks to them from the Saudi ambassador's wife.
  
  
• Claiming other countries getting a handful of nukes is somehow a threat to us without adding that no country would be foolish enough to launch one at us or give them to terrorists to detonate here since everyone knows we have THOUSANDS and would not hesitate to burn their entire country off the map before one mushroom cloud cleared here. With the Soviets, there was MAD--mutually assured destruction. Today the would be OSHOSE--our side hurt, other side exterminated.
  
  
• Intentionally blurring military defense and empire and wars of aggression. China and Russia have a tenth the military spending we do, and no one is lining up to invade them. Similarly, if a medium-sized Iraq can give us, the world's sole superpower, a bad day trying to occupy them, it is unlikely anyone would get very far with trying to occupy us or even consider it. Most of our Defense apart from the troops themselves is welfare for defense contractors.

Moderate, blue dog, DLC, or whatever you want to call them have voted with the GOP on most or all of these issues.

I would look forward to Democrats clearly separating themselves from the GOP on these points, and not just being better graded on a curve.

From: info@dscc.org
Subject: What Rush doesn't know
Date: March 7, 2009 9:03:47 AM PST

Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what he's started. Tens of thousands of you have already signed onto the DSCC's urgent call for Republican Senate leaders to denounce his shameful rhetoric - and that's just the beginning.

The Republican response has been predictable: blame the media, blame the Democrats, and rally their base. They'll do anything except tell Rush Limbaugh he's wrong.

They're hoping this will all blow over and they can go back to pretending like Rush doesn't speak for them. It's not too late for you to add your voice so we can keep the pressure on. If you sign today, we'll send your comments right to the Republican Senate leadership.

Click here to demand that Senate Republicans reject Rush Limbaugh's hateful rhetoric - We'll send them your comments. When you're finished, please forward this message to your friends and family.

The response so far has been tremendous, but we all have to do our part to fight back against ultra-conservative extremism. Join us today.

- J.B.

Machiavelli: Is candidate of people or corporations stronger?

The GOP and corporate Democrats think they are being clever by sucking up to corporations and Wall Street, but even Machiavelli saw that true strength derives from the consent of the governed, not treating them like suckers while you suck up to the nobles.

They might do well to recall that it took almost 50 years before the Republicans dared attempt to reverse the changes that FDR started, and even then, a sizable percentage of the public still believed in what FDR did. By contrast, the Reagan Revolution is looking (and smelling) like a dead man walking in less than half that time because it was a scam to oppress the people and serve the nobles as Machiavelli would say.

Someone said that the Republicans hope their candidates will do what they say and Democrats hope that their candidates won't. The reason for both is the same--too few actually serve the voters apart from the way a sushi chef serves fish to his customers.

THE PRINCE
Chapter 9

...principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self- government, or anarchy.

A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.

Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far- seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or wake away authority when it pleases him.

FULL TEXT

how to pressure GOP Sen. Stallurker Fascistpants to give up Iraq War, even if he's not your rep

Send them a letter or postcard (email from non-constituents are filtered out) to their campaign headquarters or district offices that simply says,

Dear Sen. or Rep. Stallurker Fascistpants,

My Democratic senator or representative seems to be in no danger of defeat, so I have decided to donate money and/or time to your opponent instead because you are ignoring the will of the American people and continue to support keeping troops in Iraq.

Although you usually win by a comfortable margin, you will probably be defeated since two-thirds (or whatever the current number is) of the American people want us to pull out of Iraq. Since over 70% know the Iraq War is about oil and Alan Greenspan recently confirmed this, I doubt more propaganda will help.

If you actually believe what the Bush administration says about Iraq, consider that every poll of Iraqis, even those taken by the Coalition Provisional Authority and the British Ministry of Defense show the Iraqis want the occupation to end.

You guys did do a nice job of setting up a democracy in Iraq, and that parliament is showing their independence by demanding mercenaries be withdrawn and that the occupation end.

You are obviously free to do what you want, but if you continue your present course, the GOP could face an epic route in the 2008 election. A defeat on that scale will mean your services as a lobbyist or corporate board member won't be so valuable. Maybe you won't even find another job. Jimmy Carter could use your help building houses for poor people.

Be smart. I know it's painful to give up a cash cow like Iraq that has made so much money for your corporate patrons, but consider it a "corporate restructuring" where you shed divisions that could bankrupt the whole company. If you cut your losses in Iraq, you will still have a seat in Congress and be able to line your and your friends pockets another day in other ways.

Sincerely,



PS: I was going to keep that awkward incident when you misinterpreted my nervous toe-tapping in the mens room between us. Now I'm not so sure.

NOTE: You might want to include a photocopy of your check to the opponent. Black out your address and account number though, so they don't send someone to kill your dog.

How Democrats can be to the right of the GOP gay issues AND PRO gay marriage

As I listened to the umpteenth story these last seven years on Republican torture it occurred to me that Democrats have a profound advantage on gay issues--we only support VOLUNTARY gay sex.

When the Abu Ghraib story broke, the defenses offered by the right in addition to the "few bad apples" lie was that it was no worse than a fraternity hazing or "Skull & Bones initiation" as Rush Limbaugh said (an inadvertent slip revealing what kind of people populate these 'elite' fraternities).

So I guess these republicans and their apologists think VOLUNTARY gay sex is bad, but COERCING likely heterosexuals to have gay sex at Abu Ghraib and in out of control police stations on "Guiliani time" where I seem to recall a guy in custody being sodomized with a plunger. Bush has fought tooth and nail to keep the power to do these tortures and only this week barred the use of sexual torture (and even then left some wiggle room so he could still authorize it). On a less trumpeted issue, it's not hard to figure out which side of the prison rape issue republicans fall on. Most have no trouble with gay rape of heterosexuals when it's part of punishing someone for selling a dime bag of pot or the like (truly violent offenders or big gangsters aren't in much danger).

The basis of right wing concern about gays is that they will somehow "convert" people to be gay. The vast majority of gays, especially those who want to get married, want to do their gay things only with other gays.

By contrast, if you are a heterosexual and cross the GOP, you could be forced to perform gay sex acts.

There's got to be a way to boil this down to a bumper sticker.

I bring this issue up at all because I know some democratic candidates for president will be tempted co-opt GOP positions on gays like opposing gay marriage and or even civil unions.

This approach could give them a chance to appeal to right wing homophobes without kicking a loyal constituency in the nuts as supposed "centrist" Democrats seem so willing to do.

Would saying Dems only support VOLUNTARY gay sex help with righties?
	NO-- the right would really prefer lynching. anything that emphasizes live and let live is repugnant to them
	NO--righties would not be able to process something they didn't hear from Rush or Fox News. They are the gimp locked in the trunk of the right wing co
	MAYBE--if it got enough airplay and Democrats had the balls to do it (two ginormous and unlikely ifs)
	YES--the fear of being raped would trump the more obtuse threat of being converted by osmosis if gays married.
	I'm George W. Bush, and sodomy is not gay unless I say so. See sodomy is gay sex between two terrist loving Democrats. When you rape a prisoner, yur jes showin' em who's boss.
	other
Free polls from Pollhost.com